# Why Do Atheists Interpret the Bible Hyper-Literally **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842 "2010-09-24T02:57:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/201 "2010-09-29T20:29:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@Princhester](#): > > > > Yes, generally. But as a matter of logic, the particular argument in question more directly undermines religious claims for the importance of the bible and only indirectly undermines the idea that there is a god. > > I think the notion of God came first, and was incorporated into the Bible. Thus, the gnostic gospels that incorporated a totally different notion of god. They eventually got filtered out, of course. Both the NT and the OT incorporate several different views of God, which religion, claiming that there is only one, tries to paper over. That _may_ be how it started, but when people _today_ say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? How do they describe this entity in a way that does use the Bible’s descriptions? How is their god different from the one they were told about in the religion they were raised in? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/202 "2010-09-29T20:39:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That _may_ be how it started, but when people _today_ say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? Usually they mean “pretty much the same as the God in the Bible but with minor changes to correct aspects that I find embarrassing or awkward”. Some more creativity would be fun. I’d love to meet a non-traditional believer who worshiped a 1000-foot-tall praying mantis that commanded his followers to walk around naked, fart after every sentence, and give muffins to firemen. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/203 "2010-09-29T20:44:32Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > That _may_ be how it started, but when people _today_ say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? > > Usually they mean “pretty much the same as the God in the Bible but with minor changes to correct aspects that I find embarrassing or awkward”. > > Some more creativity would be fun. I’d love to meet a non-traditional believer who worshiped a 1000-foot-tall praying mantis that commanded his followers to walk around naked, fart after every sentence, and give muffins to firemen. I usually take it to mean “If I describe my deity to you, I’m afraid that you will be able to poke holes in my beliefs, so I’m going to keep it so vague that you will _never_ be able to study it!” I may be wrong, but to show this, someone is going to have to actually describe their non-Biblical and/or non-religious deity. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/204 "2010-09-29T20:44:56Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > That _may_ be how it started, but when people _today_ say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? > > Usually they mean “pretty much the same as the God in the Bible but with minor changes to correct aspects that I find embarrassing or awkward”. > > Some more creativity would be fun. I’d love to meet a non-traditional believer who worshiped a 1000-foot-tall praying mantis that commanded his followers to walk around naked, fart after every sentence, and give muffins to firemen. I agree, assuming that they’re female and comely. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/205 "2010-09-29T21:43:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > I think the notion of God came first, and was incorporated into the Bible. Thus, the gnostic gospels that incorporated a totally different notion of god. They eventually got filtered out, of course. Both the NT and the OT incorporate several different views of God, which religion, claiming that there is only one, tries to paper over. > > That _may_ be how it started, but when people _today_ say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? How do they describe this entity in a way that does use the Bible’s descriptions? How is their god different from the one they were told about in the religion they were raised in? Question – are you talking about _Christians_ who say this, or just theists in general? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/206 "2010-09-29T21:50:29Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > That _may_ be how it started, but when people _today_ say that their idea of God is not the one in the Bible, what do they mean? How do they describe this entity in a way that does use the Bible’s descriptions? How is their god different from the one they were told about in the religion they were raised in? > > Question – are you talking about _Christians_ who say this, or just theists in general? Maybe both. People that say they are “spiritual”, not “religious”. Folks that say that it doesn’t matter that the Bible is riddled with inaccuracies because the god they believe in is still real. Those that say they came up with their idea of God(and sometimes even Jesus!) independent of the Bible and/or the religion they were brought up in. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/207 "2010-09-29T22:00:31Z")
This just in… “Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says” > **[Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-sep-28-la-na-religion-survey-20100928-story.html)** > > Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/208 "2010-09-29T22:03:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Latro](#): > > > > Well, he could, in principle, exist seperate from the religion that describes him. > > It might just describe him wrongly. > > > > There are in fact loads of (semi-) religious people that no longer believe in the God as described in Bible, yet still “feel” there must be _something_. > > The somethingites, most often, still call that something “God”. > > But if the description given them by the Bible is rejected, how is this entity described? From the Bible you get “all-knowing”, “all-seeing”, “all-powerful”, “creator of all there is”, “eternal”-take away these _Biblical_ descriptions and what have you got? That’s the irritating thing about somethingites. Whenever you try and zoom in on one of the qualifications of their version of God they waltz away. It usually ends with a “Well, that’s just how I _feel_. You have to respect my opinion.” It’s like they never really follow their own thinking to any conclusions. any thoughts they have on the subject are left dangling. Too complicated maybe, “oh look a kitten!” ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/209 "2010-09-29T22:07:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Guinastasia](#): > > > > Question – are you talking about _Christians_ who say this, or just theists in general? > > Maybe both. People that say they are “spiritual”, not “religious”. Folks that say that it doesn’t matter that the Bible is riddled with inaccuracies because the god they believe in is still real. Those that say they came up with their idea of God(and sometimes even Jesus!) independent of the Bible and/or the religion they were brought up in. How does that account for someone raised Buddhist, Hindu, etc? I believe in A god, however, not necessarily the Bible. Whether that’s considered “spiritual” or “religious”, I don’t know. I didn’t come up with it, or invent it, it’s just what I believe. The Bible really has no impact on my beliefs. (Other than I do think that Jesus had some pretty good ideas – a lot of what he was saying: “don’t be an asshole.”) That’s just how I feel. I didn’t choose my beliefs – I don’t think people CAN “choose” how they believe. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. (If you want to poke holes in it, go for it.) ETA: I don’t claim to know all the answers. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/210 "2010-09-29T22:10:44Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > Maybe both. People that say they are “spiritual”, not “religious”. Folks that say that it doesn’t matter that the Bible is riddled with inaccuracies because the god they believe in is still real. Those that say they came up with their idea of God(and sometimes even Jesus!) independent of the Bible and/or the religion they were brought up in. > > How does that account for someone raised Buddhist, Hindu, etc? I believe in A god, however, not necessarily the Bible. Whether that’s considered “spiritual” or “religious”, I don’t know. I didn’t come up with it, or invent it, it’s just what I believe. The Bible really has no impact on my beliefs. (Other than I do think that Jesus had some pretty good ideas – a lot of what he was saying: “don’t be an asshole.”) > > That’s just how I feel. I didn’t choose my beliefs – I don’t think people CAN “choose” how they believe. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. (If you want to poke holes in it, go for it.) But you were raised with the idea that there is an all seeing father figure watching you, no? That’s a feeling not easily gotten rid of. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/211 "2010-09-29T22:41:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > > Usually they mean “pretty much the same as the God in the Bible but with minor changes to correct aspects that I find embarrassing or awkward”. > > > > Some more creativity would be fun. I’d love to meet a non-traditional believer who worshiped a 1000-foot-tall praying mantis that commanded his followers to walk around naked, fart after every sentence, and give muffins to firemen. > > I usually take it to mean “If I describe my deity to you, I’m afraid that you will be able to poke holes in my beliefs, so I’m going to keep it so vague that you will _never_ be able to study it!” > I may be wrong, but to show this, someone is going to have to actually describe their non-Biblical and/or non-religious deity. I think both answers are equivalent. Since the Bible had the bad taste to be written down, and not be vague, it must be interpreted as being vague for the very reasons you both give. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/212 "2010-09-29T23:32:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > > Some more creativity would be fun. I’d love to meet a non-traditional believer who worshiped a 1000-foot-tall praying mantis that commanded his followers to walk around naked, fart after every sentence, and give muffins to firemen. > > I agree, assuming that they’re female and comely. What about a middle-aged guy, about 50 pounds overweight, with a hairy back? _“Brave first responder, feast upon the bounty of Kricknak!” \_ ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/213 "2010-09-29T23:46:45Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > I agree with you that it’s not a good argument for those learned scholars, nor for non-literal Christians. Can you comprehend the fact that not everyone falls into those groups? > > The people I deal with are a different sort entirely. They’re people who think that “The Bible must be right because it’s the Word of God. You know it’s the Word of God because it says so, right there in the Bible!” is a perfectly fine and valid argument. > > These people do not have centuries of rationalisation behind them. As I said before, they are not even aware of the contradictions and therefore have felt no need to rationalise them. > > Which makes hyper-literalism a perfectly good argument to use with them.\* > > I also don’t give detailed biology lessons on evolution to three-year-olds who ask “where do babies come from”, nor advanced optics lectures when they ask “why is the sky blue”. Perhaps your mileage varies. > > \*Please note that, as a general rule, I don’t argue with these people at all. I used to sometimes when I was much younger, but I grew out of it. 😛 The only time I do these days is when someone gets in my face. Literalist Christians are rather thin on the ground where I’m from. Nonetheless, to my mind, an argument that anyone with actual knowledge of the subject can easily refute isn’t a very _good_ argument, even assuming that it works on its intended target. Simply reverse the situation and you will see what I mean. You have raised the notion of explaining stuff to children. If children ask “where did people come from?” it is often a very _effective_ argument by religious types to tell them “god made people 6K years ago”, since they don’t know better and may not be able to even understand ‘deep time’ and evolution … but that doesn’t make it a _good_ argument, since anyone who knows anything about the subject can easily refute it. When they grow up and learn more, presumably they will realize they have been hoodwinked and resent it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/214 "2010-09-29T23:48:48Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > I agree, assuming that they’re female and comely. > > What about a middle-aged guy, about 50 pounds overweight, with a hairy back? > > _“Brave first responder, feast upon the bounty of Kricknak!” \_ Then I disagree, obviously enough. Not about whether hairy old male nudist worshippers of the Great Mantis should _exist_; honestly they would probably elevate religious discussion in general above where it currently is, in much the same way the Pastafarians do. But I disagree about loving to _meet_ one. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/215 "2010-09-30T00:03:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Literalist Christians are rather thin on the ground where I’m from. > > Nonetheless, to my mind, an argument that anyone with actual knowledge of the subject can easily refute isn’t a very _good_ argument, even assuming that it works on its intended target. Hold it right there. The people I’m debating might have a very good understanding _of the bible_, but so what? Arguing the accuracy of the bible is hard enough even if you _don’t_ know most of the text. The rare people who do and actually know the bible thoroughly won’t mind me starting from a literal stand point. Most debaters will pretty much immediately grant me that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, and that’s really all I’m after. If I ever encounter anyone who does take the bible as literal as possible and also knows what he’s talking about, we can have a different discussion. > [@](#): > > Simply reverse the situation and you will see what I mean. > > You have raised the notion of explaining stuff to children. If children ask “where did people come from?” it is often a very _effective_ argument by religious types to tell them “god made people 6K years ago”, since they don’t know better and may not be able to even understand ‘deep time’ and evolution … but that doesn’t make it a _good_ argument, since anyone who knows anything about the subject can easily refute it. When they grow up and learn more, presumably they will realize they have been hoodwinked and resent it. You’re ignoring the fact that ignorant biblical literalists can just **read their own damn holy book**. I don’t have to lie about anything. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/216 "2010-09-30T01:35:15Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > If the Bible says “thou shall spit upon every third person thy meet” then anyone who believes it should spit on the third person they meet. If they don’t, then I doubt how seriously they take their own faith. Sure apologists can twist the words around until they don’t resemble anything close to what they actually say, but they are really being willfully blind. > > The Bible and Koran are ugly works and people who claim to follow them should understand what they say without having them come through a filter of so called holy men. Religious people who ignore the more nasty parts of their works and focus on the pleasant touchy feely stuff are frankly dishonest. No no no no, you miss the point of moral story telling. Humans have always put things into stories to teach. Jesus is put as an example of what a human who is in tough with the godhead is like. Healing the sick etc are telling us that with love we are fulfilled. Athiests like a fight and because some see the world in black and white find it hard to read anything unless it is a text book. The Bible is my cultures way of describing what it is like to be one with the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/217 "2010-09-30T01:43:33Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > The Bible is my cultures way of describing what it is like to be one with the universe. So has your culture actually read it? I don’t see a whole lot of one-ness in effect. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/218 "2010-09-30T02:06:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@sisu](#): > > > > The Bible is my cultures way of describing what it is like to be one with the universe. > > So has your culture actually read it? I don’t see a whole lot of one-ness in effect. Yep my culture has, does everybody think the same? No. Also my culture has scandinavian and irish myths as part of it, Carl Jung etc so there are many influences on what I beleive. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/219 "2010-09-30T02:09:00Z")
Does your culture consist of more than just you? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/220 "2010-09-30T02:41:25Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@Cumberdale](#): > > > > The Bible and Koran are ugly works and people who claim to follow them should understand what they say without having them come through a filter of so called holy men. Religious people who ignore the more nasty parts of their works and focus on the pleasant touchy feely stuff are frankly dishonest. > > No no no no, you miss the point of moral story telling. Humans have always put things into stories to teach. Jesus is put as an example of what a human who is in tough with the godhead is like. Healing the sick etc are telling us that with love we are fulfilled. Pretty words, but the Bible is still a nasty, barbaric work no matter what kind of shiny gloss you try to put on it. > [@sisu](#): > > The Bible is my cultures way of describing what it is like to be one with the universe. And completely wrong. “Becoming one with the universe” is not even a sensible concept, short of going into space and blowing yourself up until your particles can’t be distinguished from the vacuum which is what most of the universe actually is. And at any rate, the Bible is most certainly not about any sort of mystical union with the universe; it’s about obeying a megalomaniacal sky thug. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842.md?page=12)